Then a whole
big argument happened, and other people who claim to be journalists claimed to see nothing wrong with what those so - called journalists had done.
One of
the biggest arguments happening across social media is which software should be «obligated» to adding the protection.
Not exact matches
To those who think attributing scientific results to God is a poor
argument, just think about the
big bang... it probably
happened but where did the atoms come from to create the
big bang?
The
biggest thing
happening with the
argument that James» teammates let him down is that the goalposts were changed.
It may not seem like a
big deal now, but I remember when the idea that the Apple iPad is the «iPod of tablets» (meaning it will always maintain 80 % + market share, just like the iPod in the music player market) was quite popular, because some tech writers wrote a few articles with some pretty convincing (at least on the surface)
arguments why that may
happen.
Their testimony of what
happens to the losers led to an appeal to Jamaica for help, the erection of fortifications and a
big argument as to whether to stay and fight or to run away.
But frankly people are seizing on anecdotes for climate change in the solar system that would rightly be derided if I was to use analogous
arguments on Earth (i.e. global warming is
happening because of a
big storm, or that a single glacier was melting).
Big Oil and
Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of
arguments for why global warming wasn't
happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.
Since we know that at least one supernatural event, the
big bang, has definitely
happened (look around you, see anything, proof), then this does not look like a very good
argument.
The
argument that I'm just some unknown assailant who bust into their publishing platform strikes me as pretty desperate, but that's what
happens when you fight legalistically rather than on
big bright free - speech principles.
So now what
happens to the warmist's
argument that the succes of the deniers is due to lavish funding by
big oil / coal / Koch?
If, their
argument often went, they were these «Mafia
big shots,» how did they
happen to be here in court with the lowly public defender as their only sad champion?
The couple might now not talk for hours or days, and each time
arguments like this
happen, the wedge between partners grows
bigger and the sensitivities to triggers more acute.
Most
bigger arguments aren't really about what's
happening on the surface, and so if you are feeling your claws coming out over something benign, it may be time to check in with yourself and consider other resentments you may be holding on to.